JX 

1425 


UC-NRLF 


$B    BT2    7MM 


03 


THE 
MONROE  DOCTRINE 


A  COMPLETE  HISTORY 


f 


COMPILED    BY 

CHARLES  KOHLER 

SAVATS^NAH,    GA. 


f    ^     Of   TH. 


I    UNIVERS 


ov 


.  K6 


^fi^ 


ENTERED  ACCORDING  TO  ACT  OF  CONGRESS 

IN  THE  YEAR  1903 

BY 

CHARLES  KOHLER  AND  FRANK  E.  PURSE 

IN  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  LIBRARIAN  OF  CONGRESS 
AT  WASHINGTON 


;c  01300 


The  American  Foreign  Policy  Announced 
by  Washington. 


(}^\fi  patl^j  r  avn!<rs.(\Tn 


WHAT  proved  to  be  the  foreign  policy  of  the  United 
States  for  more  than  one  hundred  years  is  found 
in  Washington's  Farewell  Address.  * 'Observe  good  faith 
and  justice  toward  all  nations,  cultivate  peace  and  harm- 
ony with  all.  *  *  *  In  the  execution  of  such  a  plan 
nothing  is  more  essential  than  that  permanent,  inveterate 
antipathies  against  particular  nations,  and  passionate  at- 
tachments for  others  should  be  excluded;  and  that  in  place 
of  them,  ji^st  and  amicable  feelings  toward  all  should  be 
cultivated.^  The  nation  which  indulges  toward  another 
an  habitual  hatred,  or  an  habitual  fondness,  is  in  some 
degree  a  slave.  *  *  *  Antipathy  in  one  nation  against 
another  disposes  each  more  readily  to  offer  insult  and  in- 
jury, to  lay  hold  of  slight  causes  of  umbrage,  and  to  be 
haughty  and  intractable  when  accidental  or  trifling  occa^ 
sions  of  dispute  occur.  *  *  *  Against  the  insidious  wiles 
of  foreign  influence,  the  jealousy  of  a  free  people  ought  to 
be  constantly  awake ;  since  history  and  experience  prove 
that  foreign  influence  is  one  of  the  most  baneful  foes  of  re- 
publican government.  *  *  *^Eui;ope  hag,  a. set  of  primary- 
interests  which  to  us  have  none  or  a  very  remote  relation. 
IJence  she  must  be  engaged  in  frequent  controversies,  the 
causes  of  which  are  essentially  foreign  to  our  concerns. 
Heuce  therefore  it  must  be  unwise  in  us  to  impHcate  our- 
selves by  artificial  ties  in  the  ordinary  vicissitudes  of  her 
politics,  or  the  ordinary  combinations  and  colhsions  of 
her  friendships  or  enmities.      Our  detached  and  distant 


situation  invites  and  enables  us  to  pursue  a  different  course. 
/If  we  remain  one  people  under  an  efficient  government  the 
period  is  not  far  off  when  we  may  defy  material  injury 
from  external  annoyance;  when  we  may  take  such  an  atti- 
tude as  will  cause  the  neutrality  we  may  at  any  time 
resolve  upon,  to  be  scrupulously  respected ;  when  bellige- 
rent nations,  under  the  impossibility  of  making  acquisitions 
upon  us,  will  not  lightly  hazard  the  giving  us  provocation; 
when  we  may  choose  peace  or  war,  as  our  interest  guided 
by  justice  shall  counsel.  *  *  *  It  is  our  true,  policy  J;o 
steer  clear  of  permanent  alliances  with  any  i^ortjon  of  the 
foreign  worlds,", ..  ^"^  -  -—        ..^^      -^ 

^yAs  Europe^guards  so  jealously  the ''balance  of  power," 
or  ^'siatus  quo^-\ on  her  continent  as  to  deem  any  altera- 
tion of  it  by  any  power  a  ''casus  belli,''  so  the  United 
States  regards ^e  sentiment  of  "America  for  the  Ameri- 
s, ""^crystallizedin-to  the  SToh'roe^octrine. 
^jT  7\  It  was  partly  in  pursuance  of  this  policy  that  Presi- 
^^  //I  dent  Jefferson  decided  on  theLXjOuisiaua  Purchase.  That 
f^  ,  Jj  portion  of  what  is  now  almost  the  center  of  the  United 
n^^A.  States,  having  already  been  ceded  from  Spain  to  France, 
^V  (\P^.  X was  again  in  danger  of  having  its  ownership  transferred  to 
,^  rfj  another  foreign  nation.  France,  being  at  war  with  Eng- 
\^\  land,  would  in  all  probability  have  had  the  Louisiana 
territory_wrested  from  her.  Jefferson,  by  threatening 
to  join  England,  was  able  to  obtain  that  province  from 
Napoleon  for  fifteen  million  dollars.  Subsequent  events 
proved  the  wisdom  of  Jefferson's  action  in  procuring 
that  magnificent  domain  for  such  a  paltry  sum. 

As  late  as  October  21,  1823  Jefferson  wrote  President 
Monroe  '  'our  first  and  f uBdameatal  -maxim,  should  ^^^e 
never  to  entangle  ourselves  in  the  broils  of .  Europe.  Our 
second,  never  to  suffer  Europe  to  intermeddle  \vith  cis- 
atlantic atTairs.  Anieiiea,  north  aiid  south,  liaiS  a  set  of 
interests  distinct  from  those  of  Europe  and  peculiarly  her 
own.     She   should  therefore  have  a  system  of  her  own. 


W 


separate  and  apart  from  that  of  Europe."] Jefferson's  views 
coincided  \Vitli  practically  all  the  prominent  Americans. 

Although  that  sentiment  of  ''America  for  the  Ameri- 
cans" was  gradually  but  surely  assuming  a  concrete 
form,  it  was  p;n'tially  due  to  British  suggestion  that  it 
developed  so  suddenly  under  President  Monroe  into  that 
important,  vital  doctrine  known  by  his  name.  For  with 
tKe  powerful  support  of  England,  it  became  an  insur- 
mountable barrier  to  any  future  European  colonization  of 
America;  aiid  in  the  course  of  time  even  restricting  Eng- 
land in  her  attempts  at  seizing  disputed  Venezuelan  terri- 
tory without  arbitration/  As  Secretary  Olney  noted  in  his 
dispatch  to  Ambassador  Bayard  in  the  Venezuelan  contro- 
versy ''its  pronouncement  by  the  Monroe  administration 
at  that  particular  time  was  unquestionably  due  to  the 
inspiration  of  Great  Britain."  All  else  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding,  to  England  who  may  or  may  not  desire 
the  honor,  is  to  be  given  the  credit  of  having  suggested  it, 
altEoughJn^a^jii^^  and  for  her  own  selfish  pur- 

poses;;^. However  much  Americans  may  have  felt  such  a 


policy  desirable  for  their  institutions  the  United  States  was 
not  then  able  to  defy  all  Europe  until  supported  by  a 
strong  maritime  power.  / 

Its  announcement  on  December  ^^_j[^9^fi  due  to  what 
seemed  an  exigency  in  European  pohtics  at  that  time 
which  affected  British  interests  materially.  The  Czar  of 
Russia  formed  an  aUiance  between  his  country,  Austria, 
Prussia  and  l^t^r  Era,|ice_and  England  for  "mutual  pro- 
,  tection"  against  domestic  revolutions.  In  congress  assem- 
\    bled  these  governments  about  1820  decided  to  ^sist  each 


other^jnjnaintainingj^  dynasties,   also  to 

1    support  each  other  in  the  suppression  of  their  rebellious 
I  subjects.    Although  lukewarm,  England  at  first  acquies- 
^A  ced  in  this  ^'Ijoly  AHia.nc^e"  and  Fringe  sent  troops  into 
^  >Bpain  to  suppress  a  rebellion  against  Ferdinand  VII. 

When  Lord  George  Canning  succeeded  Castlereagh 

6 


0^' 


as  Prime  Minister,  he  feared  that  British  interests  might  be 
threatened  by  the  alhance  and  finally  assumed  an  un- 
vy  friendly  attitude,  thereby  also  posing  as  the  friend  of 
liberty. 

About  1810  the  American  colonies  of  Spain  began_tD 
revolt  and  declare  themselves  free  and  independent,  and 
when  Canning  acceded  to  power  several  Spanish- American 
republics  had  been  formally  recognized  by  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States  as  free  and  independent  govern- 
ments. Canning  drew  France  into  an  agreement  with 
England  respecting  Spanish-American  countries.  It  is 
believed  that  Canning  desired  a  partnership  with  the 
United  States  in  regard  to  Central  and  South  America.  If 
so,  President  Monroe  certainly  disappointed  him  for  his 
famous  message  says  nothing  favorable  to  an  alliance 
with  England  or  any  other  country. 

Great  Britain  had  built  up_a  considerable  trade  with 
/Spgjn^RjFormer  Aipierican  colonics  which  she  I  was  unable 
jto  do,  so  long  as  they  were  under  the  Spanish  yoke.  Con- 
sequently when  Spain  attempted  to  reconquer  these  colo- 
nies (whose  independence  she  had  never  acknowledged), 
.  it^was  regarded  by  England  as  a  positive  menace  to  her 
commerce.  Canning  feared  that  Spain  intended  enlisting 
the  active  assistance  of  the  governments  forming  the  Holy 
Alliance  in  her  behalf.  ^  He  hoped  that  the  United  States 
and  England  might  appropriate  such  countries  of  South 
America  as  were  agreeable  to  each.  But  Monroe  would 
not  Renter  wholly  into  his  scheme.  On  the  23d  day  of  Au- 
gust, 1823  Richard  Rush,  the  American  Minister  to  the 
court.of  St.  James,  wrote  John  Quincy  Adams,  Secretary 
of  State  under  Monroe,  "I  yesterday  received  from  Mr. 
Canning  a  note,  headed^ 'private  and  confidential',  setting 
before  me  in  a  more  distinct  form  the  proposition  respect- 
ing South  American  affairs  which,  he  communicated  in 
conversation  on  the  16th^The  tone  of. earnestness  in  Mr. 
Canning's  note  and  the  force  of  some  of  his  expressions 


naturally  start  the  inference  that  the  British  Cabinet  can- 
not be  without  its  serious  apprehensions  that  ambitious 
enterprises  are  naedit^t^d  against  the  independence  of  the 
South   American  States.     Whether  by   France  alone   I 
cannot  say  now  on  any  authentic  grounds.     The  private, 
confidential  note  of  Mr.   George  Canning,  Secretary   of 
State  for  foreign  affairs  in  his  Brittanic  Majesty's  Cabinet, 
suggests:     Is  not  the   moment  come  when  our  govern- 
ments might  understand  each  other,   as  do  the  Spanish-  . , 
American  colonies?     And  if  we  can   arrive  at   such   an  p 
understanding,  would  it  not  be  expedient   for   ourselves 
and  beneficial  for  all  the  world,  that  the  principles,  of  it  ^ 
should  be  clearly  settled   and  plainly  avowed ?"|7lt  was  ^^^^<m^ 
claimed  that  Spain,  without  assistance  from  some  other 
country,  was  unable  to  subdue  South  America;  that  the 
United  States  was  in  a  better  position  than  Great  Britain 
to  make  the  announcement  against  Spain ;  jhat  England 
^(^^}^^^;^}^^^^i£^:j^^t-  T^nJt^^^d    Rtat^fj^a,   if  jifcpssflryj    in    this 
matter.     That  after  Spain  was  exhausted  in  fruitless  en- 
deavor to  reconquer  her  lost  colonies  England  and  the 
United  States  might  divide  them  up  among  themselves. 
England  had  claimed  the    Mosquito   Coast   of    Central 
Americar}^lthough   Mr.    Rush  approved  of   Canning's    ^ 
suggestions  he  realized  that  thejziwere  of  bv  far  toornnr.h 
importance  to  give  assurances  off-hand  and  could  only 
await  the  American  GovernmenVsjl£ci^r>  in  \\^  ^yipff^r 
He  was  satisfied,  however,  that  President  Monroe  would 
approve  them., 

Adams,  who  was  inclined  to-Hifike  light  of  the  mat- 
ter, of  course  laid  it  before  the  President  and  his  cabinet, 
CAs  England  aimed  principally  at  France  and  the  Holy 
Alliance,  regarding  them  a,'3  inimical  to  her  interests,  and 
as  intending  to  do  the  very  thing  that  she  herself  desired, 
i.  e.  control  Central  and  South  America,  Monroe  would 
not  agree  to  do  exactly  as  suggested."? 
I  A        The  danger  which  he  and  his  compatriots  saw  was 


■^ 


H-t>^ 


T^^e  aggressive  spirit  of  European  despotism,  and  the 
boon  was  our  freedom,  our  republican  government,  our 
constitution  and  all  the  blessings  flowing  from  and  guar- 
anteed by  them.'O 

If  Monroe  had  any  leanings  in  any  direction  at  all,  he 
rather  favored  France.  However  as  he,  Calhoun  and  the 
other  Cabinet  Officers  were  ^'very  much  afraid  that  the 
Holy  Alliance  would  restore  all  of  South  America  to 
Spain,"  he,  after  due  consideration,  promulgated  his 
famous  doctrine. 


1^ 


"I 


The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

From  his  message  of  December  2nd,  1823. 

WAS  stated  at  the  commencement  of  the  last 
session  that  a  great  effort  was  then  making  in 
Spain  and  Portugal  to  improve  the  condition  of  the  people 
of  those  countries,  and  that  it  appeared  to  be  conducted 
with  extraordinary  moderation.  It  need  scarcely  be 
remarked  that  the  result  has  been  so  far  very  different 
from  what  was  then  anticipated.  Of  events  in  that  quarter 
of  the  globe,  with  which  we  have  so  much  intercourse 
and  from  which  we  derive  our  origin,  we  have  always 
been  anxious  and  interested  spectators.  The  citizens  of 
the  United  States  cherish  sentiments  the  most  friendly  in 
favor  of  the  libertyand  happiness  of  their  fellow-mennon 
tEat  side  ^  the  Atlantic. 

In  the  wars  of  the  European  powers  in  matters  relat- 
ing to  themselves  we  have  never  taken  any  part,  nor  does 
it  comport  with  our  policy  to  do  so.  It  is  only  when  our 
rights  are  invaded  or  seriously  menaced  that  we  resent 
injuries  or  make  preparation  for  our  defense. 

With  the  movements  in  this  hemisphere  we  are  of 
necessijiy  more  immediately  connected,  and  by  causes 
which  must  be  obvious  to  all  enlightened  and  impartial 
/^observers.  The  political  system  of  the  allied  poweiaJs-/ 
^<^essentially  different  in  this  r^gp^t  from  that  of  America. 
This  difference  proceeds  from  that  which  exists  in  their 
respective  governments  and  to  the  defeuse  of  our  own, 
which  has  been  achieved  by  the  loss  of  so  much  blood  and 
treasure,  and  matured  by  the  wisdom  of  their  most  en- 
lightened citizens  and  under  which  we  have  enjoyed 
unexampled  fehcity,  this  whole  nation  is  devoted.  We 
owe  it,  therefore,  to  candor  and  to  the  amicable  relations 

10 


m^tm 


existiDg  between  the  United  States  and  those  powers  to 
declare  that  we  should  consider  any  attempt  on  their  part 
to  extend  their  system  to  any  portion  of  this  hemisphere 
as  dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety.  With  the  existing 
colonies  or  dependencies  of  any  European  power  we  have 
not  interfered  and  shall  not  interfere.  But  with  the  Gov- 
ernments who  have  declared  their  independeuce  and  main- 
tained it,  and  whose  independence  we  have  on  great 
consideration  and  on  just  principles  acknowledged,  we 
could  not  view  any  interposition  for  the  purpose  of  oppress- 
ing them  or  controlling  in  any  other  manner  their  destiny, 
by  au}^  European  power  in  any  other  hght  than  as  the 
manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition  toward  the 
United  States.  In  the  war  between  those  new  Governments 
and  Spain  we  declared  our  neutrality  at  the  time  of  their 
',  recognition,  and  to  this  we  have  adhered,  and  shall  continue 
^  to  adhere,  provided  no  change  shall  occur  which,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  competent  authorities  of  this  Government, 
shall  make  a  corresponding  change  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States  indispensable  to  their  security. 

The  late  events  in  Spain  and  Portugal  show  that  Eu- 
rope is  still  unsettled.  Of  this  important  fact  no  stronger 
proof  can  be  adduced  than  that  the  allied  powers  should 
have  thought  it  proper,  on  an}^  principle  satisfactory  to 
themselves,  to  have  interposed  by  force  in  the  internal 
concerns  of  Spain.  To  what  extent  such  interposition  may 
be  carried,  on  the  same  principle,  is  a  question  in  which 
all  independent  powers  whose  Governments  differ  from 
theirs  are  interested,  even  those  most  remote,  and  surely 
none  more  so  than  the  United  States.  Our  policy  in  re- 
gard to  Europe,  which  was  adopted  at  an  early  stage  of 
the  wars  which  have  so  long  agitated  that  quarter  of 
the  globe,  nevertheless  remains  the  same ;  which  is  not  to 
interfere  in  the  internal  concerns  of  any  of  its  powers;  to 
consider  the  Government  de  facto  as  the  legitimate  Gov- 
ernment for  us;  to  cultivate  friendly  relations  with  it  and 

11 


^ 


to  preserve  those  relations  by  a  frank,  firm  and  manly  ^ 
policy,  meeting  in  all  instances  the  just  claims  of  every  / 
power,  submitting  to  injuries  from  none.     But  in  regard' 
to  those  continents  circumstances  are  eminently  and  con- 
spicuously different.  It  is  impossible  that  tha  allied  powers 
should  extend  their  political  system  to  anv  portion  of  either/  . 
continent  without  endangering  our  peace  and  happiness ;  /VA 
nor  can  any^pfi  hftlieve  that  our  southern  brethren,  if  left^  _J 
to  themselves,  would  adopt  it  of  their  own  accord.     It   is 
equally  impossibleTtherefore  that  we  should  behold  such 
interposition  in  any  form  with  indifference.     If  we  look  to 
.the  comparative  strength  and  resources  of  Spain  and  those 
new  Governments,  and  their  distance  from  each  other,  it 
must  be  obvious  that  she  can  never  subdue  them.     It  is 
still  the  true  policy   of  the  United   States  to  leave  the  I 
parties  to  themselves  in  the  hope  that  other  powers  will 
pursue  the  same  course." 

Speaking  of  our  prosperity,  etc.  the   message   says: 
"To  what  then  do  we  owe  these  blessings?     It  is  knojvn  /S\ 
to  all  that  we  derive  them  from  the„escellencfi  of  our  in-^vfl/ 
stitutionsr~"Ought  we  not  then  to  adopt  every  measure' 
which  rnay  be  necessary  to  perpetuate  them?" 

Continental  Europe,  on  the  appearance  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  hesitated  in  its  plans.  Spain  called  a  conference 
of  the  allied  powers  in  1824  to  consider  the  project,  but 
England  refused  to  join  them;  after  ascertaining  her  posi- 
tion in  this  matter,  they  finally  abandoned  it  entirely. 

y  The  House  of  Representatives  in  1826  resolved  that] 

"The  people  of  the  United  States  should  be  left  free  to  act  / 
in  any  crisis  in  such  a  manner  as  their  feelings  of  friend- 
ship towards  those  (Spanish- American)  republics  and  as 
their  own  honor  may  at  the  time  dictate."  ^^ 

^      [/;Ahe  fir^t  appearance  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  in  the 

7    internal  politics  of  the  United  States  was  almost  immedi- 
ately after  its  promulgation,  its  bearing  on  the  part  this 

I  [  country  should  take  in  the  Panama  Congress  of  the  South  / 

12 


m 


/and  Central  American  States  in  1826  being  much  discuss3d. 

I  The  United  States  was  invited  to  send  delegates  to  this 
congress  and  did  so;  the  controversy  over  the  wisdom 
of  this  action  lasted  for  some  years,  and  was  an  unusually 
ardent  one,  but  resulted  practically  in  nothing. 

LThe  United  States  also  notified  Europe  at  various 
times  that  it  would  '^resist  with  all  its  power  the  transfer  of 
the  island  of  Cuba  to  any  other  power.^  Jefferson,  Gal- 
latin, Jno.  Quincy  Adams,  Jno.  C.  Calhoun,  Henry  Clay, 
Martin  Van  Buren,  Jas.  Buchanan,  Wm.  E.  3Iarcy  and 
others  stated  it  plainly.  It  had  been  the  unchallenged 
American  doctrine  that  Cuba  should  remain  with  Spain  un- 
less it  came  to  the  United  States;  that  Spain  should  hold  it 
in  trust;  that  we  should  resist  its  transfer  by  the  whole 
power  of  the  army  and  navy,  and  there  it  remained  until 
it  became  free  and  independent. 

aniel  Webster,  years  afterward,  in  discussing  this 
declaration  by  Mr.  Monroe,  said  that  *'it  was  wrapped  up, 
he  would  not  say  in  mysticism,   but  certainly  in   phrase 

/  sufficiently  cautiou^."     Webster  said  that  the  whole  prin- 

y (SpteoPtSe'lSIonroe  Doctrine  was  self;;;preservatipn.  .'ilt 
IS  not  aTslTghl:  injury  to  our  interests  that  makes  out  a 
^flSft-  it  mu^t'  V'  dflTigftr j;jXJm):..iecu^ 
imminent  danger  to  our  essential  rights  and  our  ess'ential 
interests."  He  claimed  that  if  the  allied  European  powers 
had  sent  an  armament  against  provinces  remote  from  us 
as  Chili  or  Argentina — the  distance  of  the  scene  of  action 
diminishing  our  apprehension  of  danger,  and  diminishing, 
also,    our  means   of  effectual   interposition — this    might 

j  "^ave  left  us  to  content  ourselves  with  remaostmnce.  But 
if  an  army  had  been  landed  on  the  shores  of  Mexico  and 
commenced  war  in  our  immediate  neighborhood,  the  event 

"^Xwould  have  called  for  decided  and  immediate  interference 

om  us. 
s^t  '     James  IL_ Folk  dei^laredjtiiat  the  Monroe  Doctrine  ap- 

(  gliedJtaJtke  I^QJd^^  alone. 

When   the    Clayton-Bulwer    treaty   relating    to  the 

13 


Nicaragua  canal  was  negotiated  in  1850,  this  doctrine  was  / 
again  discussed,  and  it  was  exploited  in  Congress  and  the 
newspapers,  very  much  in  the  style  with  which  recent 
utterances  have  made  us  familiar,  but  the  well  remembered 
instance  of  the  French  occupation  of  Mexico  is  the  one 
case,  up  to  that  time,  in  which  it  was  necessary  for  this 
doctrine  to  be  maintained  by  unequivocal  threats  of  war.  ^ 

Whenever  it  was  thought  necessary  to  state  the  Ame- 
rican position  on  this  subject  Congress  passed  resolutions  ^ 
similar  to  this  one : 

*'And  whereas,  the  doctrines  and  policy  proclaimed 
by  President  Monroe  have  since  been  repeatedly  asserted^ 
by  the  United  States  by  executive  declaration  and  action 
upon  occasions  and  exigencies  similar  to  the  particular 
occasion  and  exigency  which  caused  them  first  to  be  an- 
nounced, and  have  been  ever  since  their  promulgation,  and/ 
now  are  the  rightful  policy  of  the  United  States    Therefore 

Be~~it-a::ssplved,  that  the  United   States  of  America  — >. 
reaffirms  and  confirms  ^-hA  f|^pf  rina  gjj^  prmoiplpg  promuT-^^^v?\ 
gated  by  President  Monroe  in  his  message  of  December  2,   *''*^ 
1823  and  declares  that  it   will  assert  and  maintain  the 
doctrine  and  tliosa.principlas,  and  will  regard  any  infringe-^ 
ment    thereof    and    particular!}^    an}"    attempt    by    any 
European  power  to  take  or  acquire  any  new  or  additional 
territory  on  the  American  continent,  or  any  island  adjacent 
thereto,  or  any  right  or  sovereignty  or   dominion  in   the 
same,    in  any  case  or  instance   as  to   which  the  United 
States  shall  deem  such  attempt  to  be   dangerous  to  its 
peace  or  safety,  by  or  through,  force,  purchase,  cession, 
occupation,  pledge,  colonization,  protectorate  or  by  con- 
trol of  the  easement  in  any  canal  or  any  other  means  of 
transit  across  the  American  isthmus,  whether  under  un- 
founded pretension  of  right  in  cases  of  alleged  boundary 
disputes,  or  under  any  other  unfounded  pretensions  as  the 
manifestation  of  an  unfriendly    disposition  toward    the 
United  States  and  as  an  interposition  which  it  would  be 

14 


y 


^  impossible,  in  any  form  for  the  United  States  to  regard 
with  indifference." 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  had  it  not  been  for  Rus- 
sia, both  England  and  France  would  have  intervened  in  the 
American  civil  war.  When  a  citizen  of  the  United  States 
referred  to  the  cordiality  of  Russia  and  this  country  and 
spoke  to  the  Russian  Crown  Prince  about  the  interest  that 
his  Government  had  taken  in  American  affairs  especially 
at  that  time,  he  said  : 

"Oh,  yes!  my  father  told  me  all  about  our  Russian 
fleets  in  the  harbors  of  New  York  and  San  Francisco  to 
keep  off  your  foreign  enemies."  The  Russian  naval  com- 
manders in  American  waters  had  sealed  instructions  from 
their  Government  to  be  opened  only  in  case  of  war  being 
declared  between  the  United  States  and  a  European  power. 
They  were,  of  course,  to  assist  the  north,  as  is  well 
known. 

dt  was  not  definitely  known  in  this  country  until  the 
recent  correspondence  was  published  that  the  British  Min- 
isters in  our  civil  war  period  sought  every  opportunity 
to  destroy  the  American  Union.  Even  before  the  Trent 
Y^ffair  Lord  Russell  wrote  on  17  October,  1861  to  Lord 
Palmerston  concerning  the  opinion  of  the  French  Minister 
at  Washington  that  the  blockade  should  be  raised  by  out- 
side force.  The  whole  scheme  of  finally  destroying  the 
Union  by  European  intervention  was  thus  n:ia^pechot*t^  by 
the  British  Foreign  Ministers  as  early  as  September  17, 
1862.  Palmerston  answered  that  he  thought  Russell's 
plans ''excellent."  He  objected  to  asking  Russia  to  join 
in  "the  offer  of  mediation,  because  she  would  be  favorable 
to  the  northj) 

Secretary  of  State  Seward  remonstrated  with  Great 
Britain  as  to  her  px&m^dtetedr violations  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  in  the  following  language:  "The  Government 
of  the  United  States  will  maintain  and  insist  with  all 
the  decision  and  energy  Vv^hich  are  compatible  with  our 

15 


existing  neutrality,  that  the  Republican  system  which  is 
accepted  by  any  one  of  those  South  American  States  shall 
not  wantonly  be  assailed,  and  that  it  shall  not  be^ibverjtedr-^ 
as  an  end  of  a  lawful  war  by  European  powers.  But  be- 
yond this  position,  the  United  States  Government  will  not 
go  nor  will  it  consider  itself  hereby  bound  to  take  part  in 
wars  in  which  a  South  American  Republic  may  enter  with 
a  European  sovereign,  when  the  object  of  the  latter  is  not 
the  establishment  in  place  of  a  subverted  repubUc,  of  a 
monarchy  under  a  European  Prince." 

The  pretext  that  Napoleon  found  to  invade  Mexico 
was  certain  debts  alleged  to  be  due  citizens  of  his  country^ 

England  and  Spain  had  claims  also.     A  joint  expedi- 
tion was  arranged  to  menace  Mexico.     Napoleon   deter- 
mined to  make  this  expedition  a  means  of  acquiring   a  / 
foothold  which  should  lead  to  the  establishment  of  a  Latin*'^ 
monarchy  in  the  western  hemisphere.     The  scheme  was  >- 
a  revival  in  another  form  of  the  French  dream  of  a  great/ 
American  Empire.     The  joint  expedition^consisted  of  81 
vessels,  carrying  1,611  ^uns  atid^27^  9 1 1^  saijors^  andjroops. 
It  reached  Vera  Cruz  in  JDecember  J861.     In  the  early    , 
part  of  1862  England  and  Spain  being  remonstrated  with 
by  the  United  States  and  not  wishing  to  act  as  a  tail  to 
the  French  political  kite,  arranged  with  Mexico  to  with- 
draw their  forces  which  was  done  in  the  following  April. 

Left  alone  France  reinforced  her  army  notwithstand- 
ing the  protest  of  the  United  States  and  placed  it  under 
the  command  of  General  Forney.  The  undertaking 
seemed  easy  to  Napoleon.  His  instructions  to  Forney 
were  simply  to  "do  it  quickly  and  well."  If  his  project 
had  succeeded  it  certainly  would  have  been  the  greatest 
of  his  reign.  But  Mexico  resisted  heroically  for  more  than 
four  years. 

This  expedition  cost  France  altogether  about  forty 
million  dollars.  Being  intimidated  by  the  French  forces, 
Mexico  was  made  to  ratify  the  election  of  Maximilian  as 

16 


^  hereditary  emperor.  With  the  moral  assistance  of  the 
United  States  the  Mexican  war  party  constantly  opposed 
the  Maximilian  empire. 

In  1866  its  civil  war  being  ended  the  American  Gov- 
ernment demanded  the  withdrawal  of  the  French  troops 
from  Mexico,  as  stated  by  President  Johnson  in  his  mes- 
sage to  Congress. 

President  Johnson's  Annual  Message, 
December  1866. 

/  *'In.  the  month  of  April  last,  as  Congress  is  aware,  a 
I  friendly  arrangement  was  made  between  the  Emperor 
"of  France  and  the  President  of  the  United  States  for  the 
withdrawal  from  Mexico  of  the  French  military  forces. 
This  withdrawal  was  to  be  effected  in  three  detachments, 
the  first  of  which  it  Avas  understood,  wotJld  leave  Mexico 
in  November,  now  past,  the  second  in  March  next,  and 
the  third  and  last  in  November,  1867. 

Immediately  upon  the  completion  of  the  evacuation, 
the  French  Government  was  to  assume  the  same  attitude 
(  of  non-intervention  in  regard  to  Mexico  as  is  held  by  the 
Government  of  the  United  States.  Repeated  assurances 
have  been  given  by  the  Emperer  since  that  agreement 
that  he  would  complete  the  promised  evacuation  within 
the  period  mentioned  or  sooner. 

It  was  reasonably  expected  that  the  proceedings  thus 
comtemplated  would  produce  a  crisis  of  great  political  in- 
terest in  the  Republic  of  Mexico.  The  newly  appointed 
minister  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Campbell,  was  there- 
fore sent  forward  on  the  9th  day  of  November  last  to 
assume  his  proper  functions  as  minister  plenipotentiary  of 
the  United  States  to  that  country.  It  was  also  thought 
expedient  that  he  should  be  attended  in  the  vicinity  of 
Mexico  by  the  Lieutenant-General  of  the  army  of  the 
United  States  with  the  view  of  obtaining  such  information 
as  might  be  important  to  determine  the  course  to  be  pur- 

17 


sued  by  the  United  States  in  re -establishing  and  maintain- 
ing necessary  and  proper  intercourse  with  the  RepubHc  of 
Mexico.  Deeply  interested  in  the  cause  of  liberty  and 
humanity,  it  seemed  an  obvious  duty  on  our  part  to  exer- 
cise whatever  influence  we  possessed  for  the  restoration 
and  permanent  establishment  in  that  country  of  a  domestic 
flnT^ppiihlirari  form  of  GovernTnent 

Such  was  the  condition  of  our  affairs  in  regard  to 
Mexico,  wheli,  on  the  22d  day  of  November  last,  official 
information  was  received  from  Paris  that  the  Emperor 
of  France  had  some  time  before  decided  not  to  withdraw 
a  detachment  of  his  forces  in  the  month  of  November 
past,  according  to  engagement,  but  that  this  decision  was  / 
made  with  the  purpose  of  withdrawing  the  whole  of  those/ (/ 
forces  in  the  ensuing  spring.  Of  this  determination  how- 
ever, the  United  States  had  not  received  any  notice  or 
intimation,  and  so  soon  as  the  information  was  received 
by  the  Government,  care  was  taken  to  make  known  its 
dissent  to  the  Emperor  of  France. 

I  cannot  forego  the  hope  that  France  will  consider  the 
subject  and  adopt  some  resolution  in  regard  to  the  evacua- 
tion of  Mexico  which  will  conform  as  nearly  as  practicable 
with  the  existing  engagement  and  thus  meet  the  just  ex- 
pectations of  the  United  States.  It  is  behoved  that  with 
the  evacuation  of  Mexico  by  the  expeditionary  forces  no  sub- 
ject for  serious  differences  between  France  and  the  United 
States  would  remain.  The  expressions  of  the  Emperor 
and  people  of  France  warrant  a  hope  that  the  traditionary 
friendship  between  the  two  countries  might  in  that  case 
be  renewed  and  permanently  restored." 

Thus  diplomatically  did  the  President  state  the  situa- 
tion. Johnson's  remonstrance  to  Napoleon  backed  up  by 
General  Sheridan  on  the  Rio  Grande,  brought  Napoleon 
to  a  realization  of  the  situation.  France,  of  course,  see- 
ing that  further  resistance  to  the  United  States  would 
result  in  serious  complications,  acquiesced,  and  the  Mexi- 
can Republic  rose  on  the  ashes  of  the  Maximilian  Empire.  ^ 

18 


The  purchase  of  Russian-America  (Alaska)  for 
seven  mi  Hi  on  and  two  hundred  thousand  dollars  from 
Russia  in  1867  by  the  United  States  was  another  step 
towards  ''America  for  the  Americans"  and  another  result 
of  the  principles  underlying  the  Monroe  Doctrine  as  is 
also  the  expected  sale  of  the  Danish  West  Indies  to  the 
American  Government. 

The  Pan-American  Congress  at  Washington  was 
an  outcome  of  the  same  sentiment.  Closer  fraternal  feel- 
ing was  advocated  between  all  American  republics.  A 
court  of  arbitration  to  settle  all  disputes  and  a  railroad 
connecting  the  different  countries  was  projected. 

Now  that  Mexico  and  certain  South  American  countries 
have  built  quite  a  number  of  railroads,  some  of  considera- 
ble length,  it  is  not  believed  to  be  such  a  prodigious  task 
to  connect  the  United  States  with  the  Central  and  South 
American  countries  as  was  first  supposed.  This  fact, 
together  with  the  projected  building  of  the  Panama  canal, 
serves  to  bind  more  firmly  the  great  American  republic 
with  her  southem^ters  both  commercially  and  politically. 
It  makes  the  Pan-American  sentiment  stronger  than  ever, 
and  will  continue  to  do  so  as  time  proves  their  interests  to 
be  more  and  more  mutual.  Commercial,  as  well  as  politi- 
cal considerations,  will  cause  the  United  States  to  safeguard 
and  protect  her  weaker  neighbors  in  every_3yay  possible. 

The  Venezuelan  Controversy. 

The  boundary  dispute  between  Venezuela  and  Eng- 
land was  of  long  standing.  It  was  only  after  the  insistence 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States  by  President  Cleveland 
that  England  consented  to  arbitrate,  claiming  at  first  that 
the  matter  was  not  a  subject  for  arbitration.  The  British 
Prime  Minister  Lord  Sahsbury  contended  that  it  was  not 
a  case  where  the  Monroe  Doctrine  applied.  The  United 
States,  of  course,  insisted  that  it  did  apply. 

On  the  20th  July  1895  Secretary  of  State  Olney  sent 
a  note  to  Ambassador  Bayard  at  London  concerning  the 


threatening  state  of  affairs  between  Great  Britain  and 
Venezuela.  Beginning  at  the  very  inception  of  the  dis- 
pute which  had  assumed  a  very  grave  aspect  Mr.  Olney 
carried  his  argument  of  the  American  claim  for  arbitra- 
tion based  on  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  down  to  that  time  and 
gave  emphasis  to  his  statements  by  quoting  the  sentiments  / 
of  President  Monroe  in  full,  and  notes  that  "its  pro- 
nouncement by  Monroe's  administration  at  that  particular 
time  was  unquestionably  due  to  the  inspiration  of  Great 
Britain  who  at  once  gave  to  it  an  open  and  unquahfied 
adhesion,  which  has  never  been  withdrawn."  Secretary 
Olney  regarded  the  doctrine  as  the  embodiment  and  ex- 
pression of  opposition  between  Europe  and  America.  ^He 
said  that  Europe  being  monarchical  and  America  repub- 
lican, that  the  former  must  necessarily  be  to  some  extent 
hostile  to  democracy,  and  free  institutions  of  which  the 
latter  is  the  exponent.  He  regarded  self-government  as 
the  issue,  continuing:  "The  people  of  the  United  States 
have  a  vital  interest  in  the  cause  of  popular  self -govern-  / 
ment.  They  believe  it  to  be  for  the  healing  of  all  nations  / 
and  that  civilization  must  either  advance  or  retrograde  / 
accordingly  as  its  supremacy  is  extended  or  curtailed."  / 
Mr.  Olney  gives  in  his  note  a  firm  indorsement  to  the/ 
principle  enunciated  by  Monroe  and  defines  Great  Britain's 
position  in  this  frank  and  unambiguous  manner.  She 
(Great  Britain)  says  to  Venezuela:  "You  can  get  none  of 
the  debatable  land  by  force  because  you  are  not  strong 
enough ;  you  can  get  none  by  treaty,  because  I  will  not 
agree,  and  you  can  take  your  chance  of  getting  a  portion 
by  arbitration,  only  if  you  first  agree  to  abandon  to  me 
such  portions  as  I  may  designate." 

Mr.  Olney  says  it  is  not  perceived  how  such  an  atti- 
tude can  be  defended  nor  how  it  is  reconcilable  with  that 
love  of  justice  and  fair  play  so  eminently  characteristic  of 
the  Enghsh  race,  and  holds  that  if  such  a  position  be  ad- 
hered to,  it  should  be  regarded  as  amounting  in  substance 


to  an  invasion  and  conquest  of  Venezuelan  territory.  In 
conclusion  Mr.  Olney  says  that  in  these  circumstances  the 
duty  of  the  President  appears  to  him  unmistakable  and 
imperative.  To  ignore  Great  Britain's  assertion  of  title 
and  her  refusal  to  have  that  title  investigated,  and  not  to 
protest  and  give  warning  against  the  substantial  appro- 
priation by  Great  Britain  of  the  territory  for  her  own  use, 
would  be  to  ignore  an  established  policy,  with  which  the 
honor  and  welfare  of  this  country  are  closely  identified. 
He  therefore  instructed  Mr.  Bayard  to  lay  the  views  given 
before  Lord  Salisbury  and  said:  *'They  (the  views)  call 
/  for  a  definite  decision  on  the  point  whether  Great  Britain 
will  consent  or  will  decline  to  submit  the  Venezuelan] 
boundary  question  in  its  entirety  to  impartial  arbitration." 
Expressiug  the  President's  hope  that  the  conclusion 
will  be  on  the  side  of  arbitration,  Mr.  Olney  concludes 
with  the  pointed  statement  that  if  the  President  *'Is  to  be 
disappointed  in  that  hope  however — a  result  not  to  be  antici- 
pated and  in  his  judgment  calculated  to  greatly  embarrass 
the  future  relations  between  this  country  and  Great  Brit- 
ain— it  is  his  wish  to  be  made  acquainted  with  the  fact  at 
such  early  date  as  will  enable  him  to  lay  the  whole  sub- 
ject before  congress  in  his  next  annual  message." 

Lord  Salisbury's    reply  is    addressed  to    Sir   Julian 
\/  Pauncefote,  the  British  Ambassador  at  Washington  under 
date   of   November  26,   1895.     This  dealt  only  with  the 
appheation  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  in  the  case  at  issue,    -. 
/and  was  followed  on  the  same  day  by  another  note  discussing       \ 
the  boundary  dispute  per  se.      At  the  outset  Lord  Salis- 
bury states  so  far  as  he  is  aware  the  Monroe  Doctrine  has 
never  been  before  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  United  States 
in  any  written  communication  addressed  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  another  nation.     He  gives  what  he  beHeves  is  the 
British  interpretation  of  the  doctrine,  and  maintains  that 
\    the  dangers  which  were  apprehended  by  President  Monroe 
have  no  relation  to  the  state  of  things  in  which  we  live  at 

21 


the  present  day,  and  adds  with  thinly  covered_ironj_that 
*'it  is  intelligible  that  Mr.  Olney  should  invoke  in  the  de- 
fense of  views  on  which  he  is  now  insisting,  an  authority  \ 
(Monroe)  which  enjoys  so  high  a  popularity  with  his  own 
fellow-countrymen. " 

"The  dispute  between  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela 
is  a  controversy  with  which"  said  Lord  Salisbury  "the 
United  States  have  no  apparent  political  concern." 

Continuing  in  short,  pitjiy  sentences  he  says  "it  is 
difficult,  indeed,  to  see  how  the  question  in  controversy 
can  materially  affect  any  state  or  community  outside  those 
primarily  interested ;  that  the  disputed  frontier  of  Venezu- 
ela has  nothing  to  do  with  any  of  the  questions  dealt  with 
by  President  Monroe ;  that  it  is  not  a  question  of  coloniza- 
tion by  any  European  power  of  any  portion  of  America, 
nor  of  the  imposition  upon  the  communities  of  South  "( 
America  of  any  system  of  government  devised  in  Europe. " 

"Tt  is"  hft  says    "djuply  the  determination  of  the 

^hron^  ^f  England  long;^fore  the  republic  of  Venezuela 
caBatrhrto-'existence."  ^  "^      — --  «^— ^-^    ^-' 

As  he  proceeds  in  the  discussion  the  language  of  Lord 
Salisbury  becomes  JtaxL  He  argues  in  theory  that  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  in  itself  is  sound,  but  disclaims  any  in- 
tention of  being  understood  as  expressing  any  acceptance 
of  it  on  the  part  of  her  Majesty's  Government.  He  quotes 
Mr.  Olney  as  saying :  ' '  That  distance,  three  thousand 
miles  of  intervening  ocean  make  aai^£oli tical_ uni go,  he- 

tweea  a.^EurQpeaD...aiul..Jg3QiSXican_Ste^^^^^ 
iiieL2LpedieatwiE.feardl;5^^^e  d^^  and  adds  that    "the 

meaning  of  these  words  is  that  the  union  between  Great 
Britain  and  Canada,  Jajaiaica  and.--  Triaidftd ;  between 
Great  Britain  and  British  Honduras  or  British  Guiana  are 
inexpedient  and  unnatural. " 

"President  Monroe,"  said  his  lordship,  "disclaims any 
such  inference  from  his  doctrine,  but  in  this  as  in  other  re- 
spects Mr.  Olney  develops  it."    "He  lays  down"  said  Lord 

22 


Salisbury  "that  the  inexpedient  and  unnatural  character 
of  the  union  between  a  European  and  an  American  State 
is  so  obvious  that  it  will  hardly  be  denied.     Her  Majesty's 
Government  are  prepared  emphatically  to  deny  it  on  be- 
half of  both  the  British  and  American  people,  w^ho  are 
subject-to -heF-orown.     They  maintain  that  the  union  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  her  territories  in  the  western  hemi- 
sphere is  both  natural  and  expedient.      But  they  are  not 
;  prepared  to  admit  that  the  recognition  of  that  expediency 
I  is  clothed  with  the  sanction  which  belongs  to  the  adoption 
!  of  international  law.   They  are  not  prepared  to  admit  that 
;  the  interests  of  the  United  States  are  necessarily  concerned 
in  every  frontier  dispute  which  may  arise  between  any  two 
of  the  states  who  possess  dominion  in  the  western  hemi- 
sphere ;  and  still  less  can  they  accept  the  doctrine  that  the 
United  States  are  entitled  to  claim  that  the  process  of  ar- 
bitration shall  be  applied  to  any  demand  for  the  surrender 
bl  territOTy  wMch  one  of  those  states  may  make  against 
anotherr" 

Lord  Salisbury  concludes  with  the  statement  that  her 
Majesty's  Government  have  not  surrendered  the  hope  that 
the  controversy  between  themselves  and  Venezuela  will 
be  adjusted  by  reasonable  arrangements  at  an  early 
date. 

The  second  note  of  November  26  is  wholly  devoted  to 
a  discussion  of  the  boundary  dispute,  exclusive  of  its 
-relation  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  This  dispatch  however 
sounds  the  keynote  of  Great  Britain's  position  with  refer- 
ence to  Mr.  Olney's  representations.  Lord  Salisbury 
states  that  Great  Britain  has  repeatedly  expressed  its 
readiness  to  submit  to  arbitration  the  conflicting  claims  of 
Great  Britain  to  territory  of  great  mineral  values,  and  fol- 
lows this  statement  with  these  important  words:  "But 
they  (the  British  Government)  cannot  consent  to  entertain 
or  to  submit  to  the  arbitration  of  another  power  or  a 
foreign  jurist,  however  eminent,  claims  based  on  extrava- 
gant pretensions  of  Spanish   Officials  in  the  last  century 

23 


and  involving  the  transfer  of  large  numbers  of  British 
subjects,  who  have  for  many  years  enjoyed  the  settled 
rule  of  the  British  Colony,  to  a  nation  of  different  race 
and  language,  whose  political  system  is  subject  to  frequent 
disturbance,  and  whose  institutions  as  yet  too  often  afford 
very  inadequate  protection  to  life  and  property.  No  issue 
of  this  description  has  ever  been  involved  in  the  questions 
which  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  have  consented 
to  submit  to  arbitration  and  her  majesty's  Government 
are  convinced  that  in  similar  circumstances  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  would  be  equally  firm  in  de- 
clining to  entertain  proposals  of  such  a  nature." 

President  Cleveland  sent  the  following  vigorous  mes- 
sage to  Congress  on  the  subject :  To  the  Congress :  In  my 
annual  message  addressed  to  Congress  on  the  3d  inst.  I 
called  attention  to  the  pending  boundary  controversy  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  the  republic  of  Venezuela,  and 
X£cite4  the  substance  of  a  representation  made  by  this 
Government  to  her  Brittanic  Majesty's  Government, 
suggesting  reasons  why  such  dispute  should  be  submitted  / 
to  arbitration  for  settlement  and  inquiring  whether  it 
would  be  so  submitted. 

The  answer  of  the  British  Government,  which  was 
then  awaited,  has  since  been  received  and  together  with 
the  dispatch  to  which  it  is  a  reply,  is  hereto  appended. 

Such  reply  is  embodied  in  two  communications  ad- 
dressed by  the  British  Prime  Minister  to  Sir  Julian 
Pauncefote  the  British  Ambassador  at  this  Capital.  It 
will  be  seen  that  one  of  these  communications  is  devoted 
exclusively  to  observations  upon  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and 
claims  that  in  the  present  instance  new  and  strange  ex- 
tension and  development  of  this  doctrine  are  insisted  on  b}^ 
the  United  States,  that  the  reasons  justifying  an  appeal  to 
the  doctrine  enunciated  by  President  Monroe  are  generally 
inapplicable  to  the  state  of  things  in  which  we  live  at  the  / 
present  day  and  especially  inapplicable  to  a  controversy 

24 


involving  the  boundary  line  between  Great  Britain  and 
Venezuela. 

Without  attempting  an  extended  a;rgument  in  reply- 
to  these  positions  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  suggest  that  the 
doctrine  upon  which  we  stand  is  strong  and  sound,  because 
its  enforcement  is  important  to  our  peace  and  safety  as  a 
nation,  and  is  essential  to  the  integrity  of  our  free  institu- 
tions and  the  tranquil  maintenance  of  our  distinctive  form 
of  Government.  It  was  intended  to  apply  to  every  stage  in 
our  national  lif  eand  cannot  become  obsolete  while  our  repub- 
lic endures.  If  the  balance  of  power  is  justly  a  cause  for 
jealous  anxiety  among  the  Governments  of  the  old  world 
and  a  subject  for  our  absolute  non-interference,  none  the 
less  is  an  observance  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  of  vital  con- 
cern to  our  people  and  their  Government. 

Assuming  therefore  that  we  may  probably  insist  upon 
this  doctrine  without  regard  to  ''the  state  of  things  in 
which  we  live,"  or  any  changed  condition  here  or  else- 
where, it  is  not  apparent  why  its  application  may  not  be 
invoked  in  the  present  controversy. 

_I1b  European  power,  by  extension  of  its. boundaries 
takes  4).QSsession  of  the  territory  of  one  of  our  neighboring 
republics  against  its  will  and  in  derogation  of  its  rights,  it 
is  difficult  to  see  why  to  that  extent,  such  European 
power  does  not  thereby  attempt  to  extend  its  system  of 
GoYernment  to  that  portion  of  this  continent  which  is  thus 
taken.  This  is  the  precise  action  which  President 
Monroe  declared  to  be  '  'dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety," 
and  it  can  make  no  difference  whether  the  European  sys- 
tem is  extended  by  an  absence  of  frontier  or  otherwise. 

It  is  also  suggested  in  the  British  reply  '  'that  we 
should  not  seek  to  apply  the  Monroe  Doctrine  to  the  pend- 
ing dispute  because  it  does  not  embody  any  principle  of 
international  law,  which  is  founded  on  the  general  consent 
of  nations"  and  that  '  'no  statesman  however  eminent,  and 
no  nation  however  powerful  are  competent  to  insert  into 

25 


tihn  rnrin  of  intnrp^^'nnfl.1  Ifi^a  novel  principle^jgdH^  was 

j^^xr^    T.ppr^gniT'ftrl     b^f<7|-^,     f\nd    whJcb    >i^sf    TlOfi    fJ^infi^^—t^^Ti   I 

anfiepted  bv  the  Government  of  any  otlier  country." 

Practically  the  principle  for  which  we  contend  has 
peculiar,  if  not  exclusive  relation  to  the  United  States.  It 
may  not  have  been  admitted  in  so  many  words  to  the  code 
of  international  law,  but  since  in  international  counsels 
every  nation  is  entitled  to  the  rights  belonging  to  it,  if 
the  enforcement  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  something  we 
may  justly  claim,  it  has  its  place  in  the  code  of  internat- 
ional law  as  certainly  and  as  securely  as  if  it  were 
specifically  mentioned ;  and  when  the  United  States  is  a 
suitor  before  the  high  tribunal  that  administers  internat- 
ional law  the  question  to  be  determined  is  whether  or  not 
we  present  claims  which  the  justice  of  that  code  of  law  can 
find  to  be  right  and  valid. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  finds  its  recognition  in  those 
principles  of  international  law  which  are  based  upon  the 
theory  that  every  nation  will  have  its  rights  protected  and 
its  just  claims  enforced. 

Of  course  this  Government  is .^entirely.  confident  that 
under  the  sanction  of  this  doctrine  we  have  clear  rights 
and  undoubted  claims.  Kor^is  this  ignored  in  the  British 
reply.  The  Prime  Minister,  while  not  admitting  that  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  is  applicable  to  present  conditions  states 
*'in  declaring  that  the  United  States  would  resist  any 
such  enterprise  if  it  was  contemplated,  President  Monroe 
adopted  a  policy  which  received  the  entire  sympathy  of 
the  English  Government- of  that  date. " 

"  He  further  declares,  "though  the  language  of 
President  Monroe  is  directed  to  the  attainment  of  objects 
which  most  Enghshmen  would  agree  to  be  statutory,  it  is 
impossible  to  admit,  that  they  have  been  inscribed  by  any 
adequate  authority  in  the  code  of  international  law."         ^ 

Again  he  says  "They  (her  Majesty's  Government) 
fully  concur  with  the  view  which  President  Monroe 
apparently  entertained,   that  any  disturbance  of  existing 

■       36 


territory  distribution  in  that  hemisphere  by  any  fresh  ac- 
quisitions on  the  part  of  any  European  state  would  be  a 
highly  inexpedient  charge. " 

In  the  belief  that  the  doctrine  for  which  we  contend 
was  clear  and  definite,  that  it  was  founded  on  substant- 
ial considerations  and  involved  our  safety  and  welfare, 
that  it  was  fully  applicable  to  our  present  condition  and  to 
the  state  of  the  world's  progress,  and  that  it  was  directly 
related  to  the  pending  controversy,  and  without  any  con- 
victions as  to  the  final  merits  of  the  dispute,  but  anxious 
to  learn  in  a  satisfactory  and  conclusive  manner  whether 
Great  Britain  sought  under  a  claim  of  boundary  to  ex- 
tend her  possessions  on  this  continent,  w^ithout  right,  or 
whether  she  merely  sought  possession  of  territory  fairly 
included  within  her  lines  of  ownership,  this  Government 
proposed  to  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  a  resort  to 
arbitration  as  a  proper  meacs  of  settliug  the  question,  to 
the  end  that  a  vexatious  boundary  dispute  between  the 
two  contestants  might  be  determined  and  our  exact 
standing  and  relation  in  respect  to  the  controversy  might 
be  made  clear.  It  will  be  seen  from  the  correspondence 
herewith  submitted  that  this  proposition  has  been  de- 
clined by  the  British  Government  upon  grounds  which  in 
the  circumstances  seem  to  me  to  be  far  from  satisfactory. 
It  is  deeply  disappointing  that  such  an  appeal,  actuated  by 
the  most  friendly  feelings  toward  both  nations  directly 
concerned,  addressed  to  the  sense  of  justice  and  to  the 
magnanimity  of  one  of  the  great  powers  of  the  world,  and 
touching  its  relations  to  one  comparatively  weak  and 
small,  should  have  produced  no  better  results. 

The  course  to  be  pursued  by  this  Government  in 
view  of  the  present  condition  does  not  appear  to  admit  of 
serious  doubt.  Having  labored  faithfully  for  many  years 
to  induce  Great  Britain  to  submit  this  dispute  to  impartial 
arbitration  and  having  been  now  finally  apprised  of  her  re- 
fusal to  do  so,  nothing  remains  but  to  accept  the  situation, 
to  recognize  its  plain  requirements  and  deal  with  it  ac- 

27 


cordingly.  Great  Britain's  present  proposition  has  never 
thus  far  been  regarded  as  admissible  by  Venezuela,  though 
any  adjustment  of  the  boundaries  which  that  country 
may  deem  for  her  advantage  and  may  enter  into  of  her 
own  free  will  cannot  of  course,  be  objected  to  by  the 
United  States.  / 

Assuming  that  the  attitude  of  Venezuela,  will  remain 
unchanged,  the  dispute  has  reached  such  a  stage  as  to 
make  it  now  incumbent  upon  the  United  States  to  take 
measures  to  determine  with  sufficient  certainty  for  its 
justification  what  is  the  true  divisi^jiiiit  line  between  the 
republic  of  Venezuela  and  British  Guiana. 

The  inquiry  to  that  end  should,  of  course,  be  con- 
ducted carefully  and  judiciously,  and  due  weight  should 
be  given  to  all  available  evidence,  records  and  facts  in 
support  of  the  claims  of  both  parties. 

In  order  that  such  examinations  should  be  prosecuted 
in  a  thorough  and  satisfactory  manner,  I  suggest  that  the 
Congress  make  an  adequate  appropriation  for  the  expenses  Lx^ 
of  a  commissicm,  to  be  appointed  by  the  executive,  who 
shall  make  the  necessary  investigation  and  report  upon 
the  matter  with  the  least  possible  delay.  When  such 
report  is  made  and  accepted  it  will,  in  my  opinion,  be  the 
duty  of  the  United  States  to  resist  by  every  means  in  its 
power,  as  a  willful  aggression  upon  its  rights  and  inter- 
ests, the  appropriation  by  Great  Britian  of  any  lands  or 
the  exercise  of  governmental  jurisdiction  over  any  territory 
which  after  investigation,  we  have  determined  of  right 
belongJia  Venezuela. 

In  making  these  recommendations  I  am  fully  alive 
to  the  responsibility  incurred,  and  keenly  reahze  all  the 
consequences  that  may  follow.  I  am,  nevertheless,  firm 
in  my  conviction  that  while  it  is  a  grievous  thing  to  con- 
template the  two  great  English  speaking  people  of  the 
world  as  being  otherwise  than  friendly  competitors  in 
the    onward    march  of   civilization  and   strenuous  and 


worthy  rivals  in  all  the  arts  of  peace ;  there  is  no  calamity 
which  a  great  nation  can  invite  which  equals  that  which 
follows  a  supine  submission  to  wrong  and  injustice  and 
the  consequent  loss  of  national  self  respect  and  honor 
beneath  which  are  shielded  and  defended  a  people's  safety 
and  greatness. 

Grover  Cleveland. 
Executive  Mansion,  December  17,  1895. 


It  has  been  claimed  in  some  quarters  that  possi- 
ble Russian  and  other  complieatiens.  were  instrumental  in 
forcing  England  to  arbitrate  the  question.  Be  that  as  it 
may,  suffice  it  to  know  that  she  did  yield,  although  only 
after  considerable  correspondence.  None  the  less  is  the 
credit  due  Cleveland's  administration.  ) 

Secretary  Frelinghuysen,  correcting  an  erroneous  im- 
pression that  seemed  to  prevail  in  certain  countries  that 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  placed  the  United  States  in  the 
A^j^Qsition  of  a  bully,  stated:  "It  is  not  the  inhospitable 
principle  it  is  sometimes  charged  with  being,  and  which 
asserts  that  European  nations  shall  not  retain  dominion 
on  this  hemisphere  and  that  none  but  republican  govern- 
ments shall  be  tolerated  here;  for  we  know  that  a  large 
part  of  the  North  American  continent  is  under  the  domin- 
ion of  her  majesty's  government,  and  that  the  United 
States  were  in  the  past  the  first  to  recognize  the  imperial 
authority  in  Brazil  ^f  Emperor  Dom  Pedro,  and  in  Mexico 
of  Iturbide." 

On  January  31,  1896  Lord  Salisbury  delivered  a 
speech  in  London  in  the  course  of  which  he  rebutted  the 
statement  made  by  John  Morley  to  the  electors  at  Ar- 
broath, Scotland,  concerning  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  Mr. 
Morley  claimed  that  Lord  Salisbury  had  blundered  in 
saeming  to  question  this  doctrine.     Salisbury  replied  that 

29 


although  the  Monroe  Doctrine  formed  no  part  of  inter- 
national law,  his  dispatch  to  Secretary  of  State,  Qlnay, 
supportedJt-as  a  Tule  of  policy  as  strongly  and  distinctly 
as  possible  but  Jn  the  form  in^which  President  Monroe 
hi^sel^-tm derstood  iir^ 

Another  British  official,  Rt.  Hon.  Arthur  Balfour, 
stated  that  American s  need  have  no,  ie^r  of  England  op- 
pnainff-i£La  IVjonroe  .Uoctrinei  He(dil^ed  upon  it,  con-  j 
struing  it  to  mean  that  the  American  continent  must  not 
be  regarded  as  a  field  for  European  colonization  and  that 
European  nations  were  not  entitled  to  interfere  in  the 
domestic  affairs  of  the  new  world.  He  said  that  the  / 
United  States  and  England  concurred  in  this  construction. 

He  also  said  he  was  not  aware  that  there  had  been 
any  change  cf  mind,  and  did  not  believe  it  would  be  pos- 
sible to  find  an  individual  in  his  country  who  was  desirous 
of  what  is  known  as  a  forward  policy  in  America.  Great 
Britain  was  content  and  hg^LalvyjaYS  been  content,  to  dq^ 
the  best  for  the  colonies  she  possessed  there  and  did  not 
"W^ish  to  interfere  with  other  states  or  acquire  more  terri- 
tory. He  believed  that'  if  the  Venezuelan  Government 
had  requested  British  protection  the  honor  would  have 
been  declined  by  every  statesman  nameable.  He  referred 
respectively  to  the  long  duration  of  the  boundary  dispute, 
to  Lord  Salisbury's  dispatch,  to  the  progress  of  compiling 
documents  relating  to  the  matter  here  and  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  United  States  commission  to  determine  the 
boundary,  and  added  that  it  would  be  hard  indeed  if  the 
common  sense  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  was  unable  to  set- 
tle any  dispute  without  war.  Referring  to  the  settlement 
of  British  claims  against  Venezuela,  the  Duke  of  Devon-  V/ 
shire,  Lord  President  of  the  Council,  said:  '*Great  Brit- , 
ain  accepted  the  Monroe  Doctrine  unreservedly,  but  to 
have  abstained  from  enforcing  claims  which  she  believed  - 
to  be  just  and  essential  to  her  honor  would  be  to  make  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  an  object  of  dislike  for  ©very  civilized 
power." 

30 


The  German  Prime  Minister,  Prince  Bismarck  re- 
garded the  Monroe  Doctrine  as  impertinence.  Without 
publicly  accepting  it  as  a  part  of  international  law,  he, 
however,  never  overtly  violated  it.  Early  in  190.3  immed- 
iately after  the  reference  of  European  claims  on  Venezuela 
to  the  Hague  court  of  arbitration  the  present  German 
Premier,  replying  to  the  criticism  of  his  countrymen  for 
consul  tin  g  the  United  States  in  the  matter,  stated  : 

"The  United  States'  participation  in  the  settlement  of 
the  Venezuela  controversy  is  regarded,  in  many  quarters, 
as  unfortunate,  and  as  hindering  the  result  of  the  negoti- 
ations. Certainly,  we  would  have  reached  the  object 
desired  more  rapidly  and  better,  if  we  had  been  let  alone 
with  Venezuela,  but  every  politician  who  knows  the  A.  B. 
C's  of  this  question,  knew  absolutely  in  advance  that  we 
would  not  be  let  alone. 

Means  for  eliminating  the  United  States  from  the 
controversy  of  the  European  powers  with  Venezuela  there 
were  not  and  there  are  not. now.  The  patriotic  publicists, 
who  call  for  treating  this  question  according  to  the  Bis- 
marckian  method,  can  rest  assured  that  this  method  is 
being  applied;  carefully  nursing  the  friendship  of  the 
United  States  is  a  Bismarckian  tradition,  as  documents 
testify.  In  his  relations  with  the  United  States  he  never 
wore  'cuirassier's  boots,'  as  is  now  so  often  demanded, 
and  in  the  Samoan  question  he  was  perhaps  less  exacting 
than  his  present  successor." 

The  American  people,  ever  since  the  promulgation  of 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  in  1823,  have  insisted  on  a  strict 
adherence  to  that  policy  by  the  various  administrations. 
An  unbroken  record  for  consistency  to  its  principles  has 
been  preserved  by  every  act  of  the  United  States  govern- 
ment. Even  at  times  when,  to  one  unfamiliar  with  the 
institutions  of  this  country,  it  might  seem  that  the  doctrine 
would  be  abandoned,  or  at  any  rate  impaired ;  that  view 
was  soon  found  to  be  erroneous,  for  whenever  it   was  in 


danger  of  being  attacked,  fresh- resolutions  were   passed  ^-^^ 
as-soeii    thereafter  as  practicable,    announcing  a  firm 
determination  to  defend  it  at  all  liazards,  always  with  the 
desired  effect. 

^'  The  opinion  is  thoroughly  grounded  in  the  American 
mind  that  not  only  for  the  protection  of  its  own  country 
but  also  for  the  peace  and  safety  of  Central  and  South 
America  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  foreign  political 
influence  be  excluded.  That  if  these  countries  were  open 
to  European  colonization  they  would  immediat^Tyn5ecome_ 
bones  of  contention,  followed  by  ceaseless  foreign  wars. 
That  not  only  should  they  be  free  from  European  influ- 
ence but  that  it  is  essential  to  the  welfare  of  the  United 
States  that  it  should  be  surrounded  by  republican  govern- 
ments so  far  as  possible. 

The    smaller    republics    of    America  have   hitherto     \/ 
feared  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  was  only  a  ruse  to  control 
and  eventually  to  seize  and  incorporate  them  into  the  United 
States.     Eminent  Europeans  were  fond  of  repeating  their  ^ 
opinions  that  this  is  the  ultimate  object  of  the  American 
policy.     But  the  Latin  republics  are  gradually,  although  ^^ 
none  the  less  surely,  changing  their  views  on  this  subject; 
Chili  has  already  notifled  the  United  States  that  she  un- 
reservedly accepts  the  Monroe  Doctrine  both  in  letter  and 
spirit ;  Argentina  and  other  South  American  governments 
are  expected  to  do  likewise. 

Although  the  an ti -American  parties  of  Central  and 
South  America  still  suspect  the  United  States  of  hostile 
designs  upon  them,  her  action  in  promptly  giving  freedon[i 
and  independence  to  Cuba  has  convinced  xaany.of  them.- > 
of  the  sincerity  of  her  promises.  The  influence  of  the 
United  States  constantly  increases  over  the  whole  west- 
ern hemisphere. 

"While  the  Monroe  Doctrine  has  been  the  means  of 
preserving  the  other  American  republics  from  annihilation 
by  European  powers,  if  thgt  were  the  sole  object  of  this 


doctrine  it  would  not  be  worth  the  while  of  the  United 
!  States  to  uphold  it.  For  those  governments  with  few 
exceptions  are  merely  dictatorships  under  the  guise  of 
^'rep.ublics."  Did  not  the  American  government  realize 
that  it  is  necessary  for  her  own  safety  as  well  as  the 
ultimate  development  of  republican  institutions  elsewhere, 
it  would  not  consider  "the  game  worth  the  candle." 

Central  and  South  America  is  composed  principally 
of  Spanish -speaking  people  among  whom  the  Indian  ad- 
mixture greatly  predominates;  Indians  and  those  partly 
of  that  race  constitute  about  three-quarters  of  the  total 
population.  Only  about  one-fourth  of  the  entire  popula- 
tion consists  of  pure-blooded  Spanish  descendants,  mer- 
chants and  others  from  the  United  States,  England, 
Germany  and  elsewhere.  They  practically  constitute  the 
educated  class.  This  small  portion  is  the  progressive  ele- 
ment; in  them  lies  the  only  hope  of  civilization  and 
progress.  The  other  three-quarters  are  so  densely  igno- 
rant and  illiterate  and  so  crushed  with  superstition  as  to 
be  beyond  all  hope  for  many  years  to  come.  This  igno- 
rant majority  offers  a  constant  temptation  to  renegades, 
desperadoes  and  the  like  for  political  aggrandizement. 
The  consequence  of  which  is  that,  with  a  very  few  except- 
ions, those  countries  are  in  a  chronic  state  of  revolution 
and  upheaval.  The  disappointed  aspirant  seizes  the  first 
opportunity  to  remove,  either  by  assassination  or  other- 
wise, his  opponent  for  the  "presidency;"  after  seizing  the 
ofl&ce  he  holds  it  until  displaced  by  some  other  revolution- 
ist. Diaz,  although  giving  Mexico  the  best  Government 
in  her  history,  has  been  virtual  dictator  for  about  a  score 
of  years. 

Of  course  it  is  not  contended  that  there  are  no  honora- 
ble exceptions  to  the  political  adventurers  in  Central  and 
South  American  countries.  But  it  is  contended  that 
three-fourths  of  those  people  are  practically  incapable  of 
self-government  and  that  the  other  fourth  does  not,  as  a 

W 


matter  of  fact,  give  those  countries  a  republican  form  of 
government,  with  possibly  three  exceptions.  Among 
those  South  Americans  that  are  worthy  to  be  honored  as 
true  patriots  may  be  mentioned  Simon  Bolivar,  the  hero 
of  South  American  independence,  the  Washington  of 
Latin  America.  It  has  been  well  said  of  him.  *'he  expend- 
ed nine-tenths  of  a  splendid  patrimony  in  the  service  of 
his  country;  and  although  he  had  for  a  considerable 
period  unlimited  control  over  the  revenues  of  three 
countries — Bolivia  (named  after  him),  Colombia  and 
Peru — he  died  without  a  shilling  of  the  public  money  in 
his  possession.  He  secured  the  independence  of  three 
states  and  called  forth  a  spirit  in  the  southern  portion  of 
the  new  world  which  can  never  be  extinguished.  He 
purified  the  administration  of  justice ,  and  he  induced  other 
countries  to  recognize  the  independence  of  those  countries." 
Their  so-called  elections  in  most  instances  are  decided  not 
by  ballots,  but  by  bullets. 

In  the  discussion  in  Congress  anent  the  Panama 
canal  treaty  Senator  Morgan  of  Alabama  brought  forward 
facts  to  prove  that  the  then  existing  Colombian  Govern- 
ment could  not  constitutionally  surrender  control  of  or 
lease  the  right  of- way  across  the  isthmus;  the  administra- 
tion Senators  intimated  that  there  was  never  a  de-jure 
Government  there  and  that  if  necessary"  the  United  States 
would  simply  take  possession  by  force  under  color  of  the 
title  received  from  Colombia. 

Notwithstanding  the  gloomy  outlook  for  civilization 
in  those  turbulent  countries,  a  continuous  immigration 
from  Europe  and  the  United  States  together  with  those 
great  agencies  of  modern  advancement,  steam  and  elec- 
tricity, is  slowly  but  none  the  less  surely  making  a 
change  for  the  better.  Superstition,  illiteracy  and  anarchy 
will  have  to  yield  to  progress. 

In  the  whole  existence  of  the  United  States,  Monroe's 
administration  was  the  most  opportune  for  the  promulga- 
tion of  such  a  doctrine  as  this.     His  was  pre-eminently 

34 


the  "era  of  good  feeling,"  never  were  the  different 
sections  of  the  country  more  thoroughly  united  and  more 
in  unison.  !N"ot  being  distracted  with  internal  bickerings, 
the  country  was  better  able  to  guard  its  foreign  as  well 
as  domestic  interests. 

It  could  present  a  more  solid  front  to  the  outside 
world  than  at  times  when  the  people  were  not  so  thorough- 
ly united.  Although  the  United  States  was  then  young 
and  comparatively  feeble,  nevertheless  with  her  incompa- 
rable position,  isolated,  and  surrounded  by  no  powerful 
nations,  hers  was  and  is  to-day  a  commanding  situation. 

The  United  States  is  careful  to  impress  upon  South 
and  Central  America  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  not  in- 
ided  as^  shield  for 


Cleveland  did  not  deny  the  right  of  the  BrifTsh  to  land 
marines  at  Corinto,  Central  America ;  nor  did  Roosevelt 
prevent  England,  Germany  ajid  Italy  from  bombarding 
Venezuelan  forts  to  exact  a  money  indemnity,  where  no 
territorial  seizure  was  attempted.^ 


Influence  of  the  United  States  on  Europe* 


NOT  only  is  the  American  Government  a  model  for  the  ( 
Central  and  South  American  republics  but  it  has 
always  been  a  beacon-light  for  free  institutions  the  world  , 
over.     Every  country  on   the  globe  has  benefited  either 
directly  or  indirectly  by  its  example.     At  first  considered  I 
only  an  experiment  it  is  now  acknowledged  everywhere  to 
be  a  demonstration,  a  living  proof  of  the  success  of  ''gov- 
ernment of  the  people,  for  the  people  and  by  the  people." 

When  Jefferson  wrote  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence he  "shook  every  throne  in  Europe."  Realizing  this 
fact,  the  European  monarchies  never  ceased  their  attempts 
to  effect  the  destruction  of  this  government.  Not  only 
did  England  utilize  the  Indian  savages  in  her  warfare 
against  the  United  States,  but  made  use  of  every  means 
possible  to  accomplish  her  ends.  During  the  Madison 
administration  Great  Britain  sent  a  secret  agent  to  Boston 
to  engender  strife  between  the  different  sections  of  this 
country  and  to  breed  discontent  with  the  government. 
She  encouraged  the  English  abolitionists  in  their  agitation 
against  American  slavery,  solely  for  the  purpose  of  divid- 
ing the  north  and  south.  The  ultimate  idea  of  France,  f^ 
Spain  and  England,  in  destroying  the  Mexican  republic,  ^~^ 
evidently  was  to  have  monarchical  governments  both 
north  (Canada)  and  south  (Maximilian  Empire)  of  the 
United  States  and  the  Confederacy ;  they  hoped  thus  after 
the  United  States  was  weakened  by  being  divided  into 
two  governments  to  take  advantage  of  any  opportunity  to 
subjugate  either  or  both  of  them. 

Although   Great  Britain  did   not  openly  assist  the 

south,  as  she  led  many  to  believe,  she  secretly  aided  the 

M^essionists  to  such  an  extent  that  she  was  compelled  to 

pay  the  United  States  fifteen  million  dollars  in  damages 

36 


after  the  civil  war.  Against  the  Union  cause,  during  the 
war  between  the  states,  the  European  powers,  with  the 
exception  of  Russia,  were  a  unit.  Of  course  this  was  not 
so  much  the  sentiment  of  the  common  people  as  of  the 
ruling  classes  there. 

Both  England  and  her  possessions  benefited  by  the 
influence  of  American  institutions,  for  her  colonies  imme- 
diately felt  its  effect  and  Great  Britain  also  later  on.  The 
success  of  popular  government  in  the  United  States 
taught  England  a  very  valuable  lesson  in  colonial  affairs ; 
so  much  so,  that  Canada  and  Australia  are  practically 

free  now. 

To  Ireland  which  seems  to  be  the  last  of  the  countries 
under  British  dominion  to  reap  any  benefit  from  the 
liberal  laws  for  which  England  has  been  noted  so  long, 
the  indirect  benefit  of  republican  institutions  has  been 
enormous.  The  success  of  popular  rule  here  has  lessened 
British  prejudice  against  the  capacity  of  the  Irish  for 
self-government ;  and  although  they  have  not  yet  acquired 
"home  rule,"  they  are  at  least  given  a  nominal  voice  in 
political  affairs  and  have    had  many  unjust  and  cruel 

restrictions  removed. 

Not  only  in  her  possessions  but  even  at  home  England 
has  experienced  many  benefits  from  the  example  of  our 
governmental  system.  Formerly  it  was  the  classes  only 
that  participated  in  that  government;  now;  it  is  also  the 
masses,  for  people  are  at  present  allowed  the  rigK^^  suf- 
frage there  that  were  hitherto  considered  utterly  incapa- 
ble of  its  exercise. 

When  the  French  soldiers  returned  home  from  the 
American  Revolutionary  war,  they  scattered  the  germs  of 
republicanism  not  only  over  France  but  eventually  through- 
out Europe.  Although  France  is  now  proverbial  for  her 
peasant  proprietorship,  the  miserable  condition  of  the 
peasantry  there  and  in  the  remainder  of  continental  Eu- 
rope may  be  understood  when  it  is  remembered  that  at  the 
time  of  the  Declaration  of  American  Independence  one 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  of  the  privileged  classes  in 

37 


France  owned  two-thirds  of  the  soil;  and  the  remaining 
twenty-five  millions  of  people  had  only  one-third.  It  was 
the  republican  ideas  from  America  that  assisted  in  bring- 
ing about  the  great  French  revolution. 

When  Germany  and  other  countries  of  continental 
Europe  were  ground  down  under  the  iron  heels  of  despotic 
princes  and  kings,  Napoleon's  army  (although  in  one 
sense  a  scourge),  imbued  with  the  ideas  of  liberty  that 
many  of  them  obtained  in  America,  released  the  peasantry 
to  some  extent  from  their  intolerable  burdens.  At  the 
time  of  the  establishment  of  the  American  republic, 
Europe,  with  the  exception  of  Great  Britain,  was  practi- 
cally a  despotism;  owing  partially  to  the  influence  of 
popular  government  in  the  United  States,  that  continent 
has  improved  wonderfully  in  political  affairs. 

The  United  States  by  becoming  a  '* world  power,"  in 
the  estimation  of  many  people,  loses  her  right  to  insist  on 
the  Monroe  Doctrine.  They  believe  that  consistency 
compels  her  either  to  refrain  from  "meddling"  in  the 
affairs  of  the  "old  world,"  or  allow  other  powers  to  do  the 
same  in  this  hemisphere.  But  they  should  remember  that 
progressive  countries  ^re  more  inclined  to  broaden  their 
policies  than  to  contract  them.  The  great  modern  invent- 
ions have  so  changed  conditions  that  they  have  not  only 
almost  annihilated  space,  making  all  peoples  of  the  world 
practically  neighbors,  but  have  forced  us  in  self-defense 
to  leave  our  former  seclusion  and  participate  more  in  the 
political  affairs  of  the  world.  For  whatever  affects  the 
politics  of  a  country  indirectly  affects  its  comriierce. 
Although  we  may  not  take  a  direct  interest  in  the  concerns 
of  China,  for  instance,  whenever  its  governmental  policy 
is  so  manipulated  as  to  injure  our  trade  with  that  country 
we  are  of  necessity  forced  into  the  matter,  to  the  extent  of 
protecting  ourselves. 

While  the  United  States  has  increased  wonderfully  in 
population  and  territory,  no  less  wonderful  is  her  finan- 
cial-record;  she  has  the  greatest  wealth  and  the  least 
indebtedness  of  any  first-class  power. 

38 


Life  of  President  James  Monroe, 


JAMES  MONROE,  the  fifth  President  of  the  United 
States,  was  born  on  the  28th  of  April,  1758  in 
Westmoreland  County,  Virginia ;  his  parents  were  Spence 
and  Elizabeth  (nee  Jones)  Monroe,  also  natives  of  that 
state ;  they  were  said  to  have  descended  from  a  family  of 

'  Scotch  cavaliers  who  traced  their  ancestry  to  Hector 
Monroe,  a  captain  in  the  army  of  King  Charles  I.  This 
family  settled  at  an  early  period  in  Virginia  with  other 
cavalier  immigrants. 

At  an  early  age  the  future  President  showed  great 
decision  of  character.  He  was  a  student  at  William  and 
Mary  College  in  Virginia  when  the  revolutionary  war 
commenced ;  he  left  college  and  volunteered  as  a  cadet  in 
the  continental  army  and  was  present  at  several  battles. 
He  participated  in  the  New  Jersey  engagements  of  1776  and 
was  wounded  in  the  retreat  through  that  state,  serving  as 
Lieutenant;  he  was  then  promoted  to  Captain  of  infantry. 
Upon  recovery  he  was  placed  as  aid-de-camp  on  the 
staff  of  General  William  Alexander  (Lord  Stirling)  with 
the  rank  of  Major,  where  he  served  until  the  following 
year  with  distinction.  Upon  the  recommendation  of 
General  Washington  he  was  appointed  Colonel.      In  1780 

y  Jefferson  delegated  him  to  visit  the  army  in  South  Caro- 
lina on  an  important  mission. 

Returning  to  his  native  state  he  studied  law  with 
Jefferson,  who  was  then  Governor  of  Virginia;  so  inti- 
mate did  Monroe  become  with  Jefferson  and  Madison  that 
they  influenced  his  future  political  course  to  a  great  ex- 
tent. He  was  elected  to  the  Virginia  Assembly  by  King 
George  County  in  1782  and  was  chosen  by  that  body  a 
member  of  the  Executive  Council  of  State.     In  1783  he 

39 


was  selected  as  a  delegate  to  the  Continental  Congress  and 
remained  a  member  nntil  1786,  actively  participating  in 
the  framing  of  the  new  constitution.  While  a  member  of 
Congress  he  married  Miss  Kortright  of  New  York  City. 

At  the  expiration  of  his  congressional  term  he  engag- 
ed in  the  practice  of  law  at  Fredericksburg,  Va.,  but 
was  almost  immediately  elected  to  the  State  Legislature. 
Ho  was  chosen  in  1788  a  delegate  to  the  State  Convention 
assembled  to  consider  the  Federal  Constitution ;  dreading 
the  too-centralized  power  of  the  Federal  Government,  he, 
together  with  Patrick  Henry  and  other  states-rights  advo- 
cates, opposed  in  the  Virginia  Convention  of  1788  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution. 

After  the  formation  of  the  new  government  he  was  a 
candidate  for  Congress  against  Madison  but  was  defeated. 
The  Legislature  of  the  state  elected  him  to  the  United 
States  Senate  in  1790  in  the  place  of  William  Grayson, 
deceased ;  true  to  his  states-rights  views  he  actively  op- 
posed the  Federalist  administration  of  Washington, 
remaining  in  the  Senate  three  years.  Although  an  op- 
ponent of  his  administration  Washington  appointed  him 
Minister  to  France,  to  succeed  the  Federalist,  Governor 
Morris,  whose  recall  the  French  Government  requested. 
Washington  hoped  to  appease  that  government  by  his  ap- 
pointment of  an  anti-Federalist,  as  France  suspected  the 
partiality  of  the  Federalist  element  of  the  administration 
towards  England.  It  was  supposed  that  the  former  confi- 
dential relations  of  the  two  countries  would  be  restored  by 
the  selection  of  Monroe;  it  was  also  expected  to  soothe  the 
feelings  of  that  portion  of  the  American  people  who 
thought  that  France  was  due  more  recompense  than  had 
been  given  her  for  the  assistance  rendered  in  the  revolu- 
tionary war. 

France  received  Monroe  cordially  as  a  representative 
of  the  political  party  in  America  supposed  to  be  in  full 
accord  with  that  country.  He  proved  so  enthusiastic  in 
his  French  sympathies  that  the  administration  was  afraid 

40 


that  he  might  compromise  the  neutral  position  assumed 
by  the  United  States  towards  the  European  powers. 

John  Jay  had  concluded  a  treaty  with  Great  Britain 
at  which  France  took  great  offense,  claiming  it  to  be  in 
violation  of  her  treaty  of  1778  with  the  United  States. 
Washington  and  his  cabinet,  thinking  that  Monroe  should 
have  allayed  the  strained  relations  between  the  United 
States  and  France,  recalled  him  in  1796.  Feeling  aggriev- 
ed at  this  treatment,  he  issued  a  pamphlet  of  about  five 
hundred  pages,  called  the  *'View,"  defending  his  actions 
in  the  matter.  Shortly  after  his  return  to  America  he 
was  again  elected  to  the  Legislature. 

The  French  or  Democratic  party  in  Virginia  believing 
Monroe  to  have  been  sacrificed  for  his  devotion  to  liberal 
principles  made  him  Governor  in  1799  to  which  office  he 
was  re-elected. 

He  was  sent  in  1802  by  President  Jefferson  to  Paris 
to  negotiate  with  R.  R.  Livingston  the  purchase  of  New 
Orleans.  They  succeeded  so  well  that  they  acquired  the 
entire  territory  known  as  the  Louisiana  Purchase  and  with 
such  little  difficulty  that  the  whole  transaction  was  ac- 
complished in  about  two  weeks . 

Monroe  was  soon  afterwards  appointed  Minister  to 
England  to  replace  Rufus  King.  He  went  in  1804  to 
Spain  for  the  purpose  of  buying  Florida;  failing  in  this, 
in  1805  he  returned  to  England.  In  1806  he  undertook 
with  William  Pinkney  to  procure  a  new  treaty  with  Great 
Britain  in  place  of  the  one  negotiated  by  Jay ;  they  suc- 
ceeded in  arranging  with  the  British  commissioners, 
Lords  Auckland  and  Howick,  another  treaty  more  favora- 
ble to  the  United  States  than  the  previous  one.  But  as  it 
did  not  prevent  England  from  impressing  American 
seamen  into  the  British  service,  it  was  not  submitted  to 
the  Senate  for  ratification,  but  was  returned  for  revision. 
Monroe  was  very  much  provoked  at  this  action  of  the 
administration.  As  Foreign  Secretary  Canning,  who  suc- 
ceeded Fox,  refused  to  negotiate  further,  Monroe  returned 

41 


to  the  tJiiited  States  and  published,  m  defense  of  his 
actions  in  this  matter,  another  pamphlet. 

Although  Virginia  declared  in  1808  in  favor  of  Mon- 
roe for  the  Presidency,  he  withdrew  his  name  after  it  was 
brought  forward  by  his  friends.  He  was  elected  to  the 
State  Legislature  once  more  in  1810  and  in  1811  he  was 
chosen  Governor.  Jefferson  having  healed  the  political 
breach  between  him  and  his  opponents,  Madison  selected 
him  this  year  for  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State  in  place 
of  Robert  Smith,  where  he  was  instrumental  in  bringing 
on  the  war  of  1812  with  England. 

As  Brigadier  General  Armstrong  retired  after  the 
capture  and  devastation  of  Washington  City,  the  duties  of 
the  war  as  well  as  of  the  state  department  were  assumed 
by  Monroe,  who  conducted  them  with  much  more  energy 
than  had  been  heretofore  done  by  the  Democratic- Republi- 
can party. 

In  1816  he  was  chosen  President  by  128  electoral  votes 
against  34  and  in  1820  was  re-elected  practically  without 
opposition,  such  being  his  popularity  at  that  time  that 
only  one  electoral  vote  was  cast  against  him.  His  eight 
years  as  President  are  historically  known  as  **the  era  of 
good  feeling,"  the  old  issues  having  practically  died  out 
and  the  new  ones  not  yet  having  been  formed.  Those 
able  leaders,  John  C.  Calhoun,  John  Quincy  Adams, 
William  Wirt  and  W.  H.  Crawford  were  selected  for  his 
cabinet. 

The  country  had  long  been  injured  by  foreign  troubles 
and  President  Monroe  saw  the  opportunity  for  benefiting 
the  nation.  He  succeeded  in  arranging  the  boundary 
lines  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase  and  in  negotiating  the 
acquisition  of  Florida  from  Spain ;  he  also  settled  the  vexa- 
tious slavery  extension  question  by  the  Missouri  compro- 
mise. But  of  course,  his  greatest  claim  to  fame  and 
popularity  rests  on  the  promulgation  of  his  famous 
doctrine ;  he  is  also  known  for  his  recognition  of  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  Central  and  South  American  States. 

42 


How  devoted  he  was  to  popular  governments  and  how 
true  he  was  to  his  principles  can  be  seen  in  no  better  way 
than  in  his  constant  watchfulness  over  the  American  re- 
pubh'cs  as  evinced  in  his  message  to  Congress  both  before 
and  after  the  promulgation  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

In  his  first  annual  message,  2  Dec.  1817  he  states: 

*'It  was  anticipated  at  an  early  stage  that  the  contest 
between  Spain  and  the  colonies  would  become  highly 
interesting  to  the  United  States.  It  was  natural  that  our 
citizens  should  sj^mpathize  in  events  that  affected  our 
neighbors.  It  seemed  probable  also  that  the  prosecution 
of  the  conflict  along  our  coast  and  in  contiguous  countries 
would  occasionally  interrupt  our  commerce  and  otherwise 
affect  the  persons  and  property  of  our  citizens.  These  an- 
ticipations have  been  realized.  Such  injuries  have  been 
received  from  persons  acting  under  authority  of  both  the 
parties  and  for  which  redress  has  in  most  instances  been 
withheld.  Through  every  stage  of  the  conflict  the  United 
States  have  maintained  an  impartial  neutrality,  giving 
aid  to  neither  of  the  parties  in  men,  money,  ships  or 
munitions  of  war. 

They  have  regarded  the  contest  not  in  the  light  of  an 
ordinary  insurrection  or  rebellion,  but  as  a  civil  war  be- 
teen  parties  nearly  equal,  having  as  to  neutral  powers 
equal  rights.  Our  ports  have  been  open  to  both,  and 
every  article,  the  fruit  of  our  soil  or  the  industry  of  our 
citizens,  which  either  was  permitted  to  take,  has  been 
equally  free  to  the  other.  Should  the  colonies  establish 
their  independence,  it  is  proper  now  to  state  that  this  gov- 
ernment neither  seeks  nor  would  accept  from  them  any 
advantage  in  commerce  or  otherwise  which  will  not  be 
equally  open  to  all  other  nations.  The  colonies  will  in 
that  event  become  independent  states,  free  from  any  obli- 
gation to  or  connection  with  us  which  it  may  not  then  be 
their  interest  to  form  on  the  basis  of  a  fair  reciprocity. 

In  the  civil  war  existing  between  Spain  and  the 
Spanish  provinces  in  this  hemisphere  the  greatest  care  has 

43 


been  taken  to  enforce  the  laws  intended  to  preserve  an 
impartial  neutrality.  Our  ports  have  continued  to  be 
equally  open  to  both  parties  and  on  the  same  conditions, 
and  our  citizens  have  been  equally  restrained  from  interfer- 
ing in  favor  of  either  to  the  prejudice  of  the  other.  The 
progress  of  the  war  however  has  operated  manifestly  in 
favor  of  the  colonies.     *  *  * 

This  contest  has  from  its  commencement  been  very 
interesting  to  other  powers  and  to  none  more  so  than  to 
the  United  States.  A  virtuous  people  may  and  will  con- 
fine themselves  within  the  limit  of  a  strict  neutrality;  but 
it  is  not  in  their  power  to  behold  a  conflict  so  vitally 
important  to  their  neighbors  without  the  sensibility  and 
sympathy  which  naturally  belong  to  such  a  case.  It  has 
been  the  steady  purpose  of  this  Government  to  prevent 
that  feeling  leading  to  excess,  and  it  is  very  gratifying  to 
have  it  in  my  power  to  state  that  so  strong  has  been  the 
sense  throughout  the  whole  community  of  what  was  due 
to  the  character  and  obligations  of  the  nation  that  very 
few  examples  of  a  contrary  kind  have  occurred. 

The  distance  of  the  colonies  from  the  parent  country 
and  the  great  extent  of  their  population  and  resources 
gave  them  advantages  which  it  was  anticipated  at  a  very 
early  period  would  be  difficult  for  Spain  to  surmount. 
The  steadiness,  consistency  and  success  with  which  they 
have  pursued  their  object  as  evinced  more  particularly  by 
the  undisturbed  sovereignty  which  Buenos  Ay  res  has  so 
long  enjoyed,  evidently  give  them  a  strong  claim  to  the 
favorable  consideration  of  other  nations.  These  senti- 
ments on  the  part  of  the  United  States  have  not  been 
withheld  from  other  powers  with  whom  it  is  desirable  to 
act  in  concert. 

Should  it  become  manifest  to  the  world  that  the 
efforts  of  Spain  to  subdue  these  provinces  will  be  fruitless, 
it  may  be  presumed  that  the  Spanish  Government  itself 
^vill  give  up  the  contest.  In  producing  such  a  determina- 
tion  it   cannot  be  doubted   that  the  opinion  of  friendly 

44 


powers  who  have  taken  no  part  in  the  controversy  will 
have  their  merited  influence." 

Unquestionably  it  is  owing  more  to  Monroe  than  to 
any  other  one  man  that  the  Latin  republics  were  pre- 
served from  destruction,  for  he  was  constantly  on  the 
alert  to  protect  their  interests.  In  almost  all  of  his  mes- 
sages he  shows  his  interest  in  their  success.  He  states  in 
his  Fourth  Annual  Message  14  November,  1820: 

**The  contest  between  Spain  and  the  colonies,  accord- 
ing to  the  most  authenic  information,  is  maintained  by 
the  latter  with  improved  success.  The  unfortunate  divi- 
sions which  were  known  to  exist  some  time  since  at 
Buenos  Ayres  it  is  understood  still  prevail.  In  no  part  of 
South  America  has  Spain  made  any  impression  on  the 
colonies,  while  in  many  parts  and  particularly  in  Venezu- 
ela and  New  Granada,  the  colonies  have  gained  strength 
and  acquired  reputation  both  for  the  management  of  the 
war  in  which  they  have  been  successful  and  for  the  order 
of  the  internal  administration.  The  late  change  in  the 
government  of  Spain,  by  the  re-estabhshment  of  the 
constitution  of  1812  is  an  event  which  promises  to  be 
favorable  to  the  revolution.  Under  the  authority  of  the 
Cortes  the  Congress  of  Angostura  was  invited  to  open 
a  negotiation  for  the  settlement  of  differences  between  the 
parties,  to  which  it  was  replied  that  they  would  willingly 
open  the  negotiation  provided  the  acknowledgment  of 
their  independence  was  made  its  basis  but  not  otherwise. 
Of  further  proceedings  between  them  we  are  uninformed. 

No  facts  are  known  to  this  government  to  warrant  the 
belief  that  any  of  the  powers  of  Europe  will  take  part  in 
the  contest,  whence  it  may  be  inferred,  considering  all 
circumstances  which  must  have  weight  in  producing  the 
result,  that  an  adjustment  will  finally  take  place  on  the 
basis  proposed  by  the  colonies.  To  promote  that  result 
by  friendly  counsels,  with  other  powers,  including  Spain 
herself,  has  been  the  uniform  policy  of  this  government." 

45 


That  his  vigilance  suffered  no  diminution  is  clearly  seen 
by  his  eighth  annual  message  (after  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
proper  was  promulgated.) 

Eighth  Annual  Message  December  7,  1824. 

"In  turning  our  attention  to  the  condition  of  the  civi- 
lized world,  in  which  the  United  States  have  always  taken 
a  deep  interest,  it  is  gratifying  to  see  how  large  a  portion 
of  it  is  blessed  with  peace.  The  only  wars  which  now 
exist  within  that  limit  are  those  between  Turkey  and 
Greece,  in  Europe  and  between  Spain  and  the  new  gov- 
ernments, our  neighbors,  in  this  hemisphere.  In  both  these 
wars  the  cause  of  independence,  of  liberty  and  humanity 
continues  to  prevail.     *  *  * 

With  respect  to  the  contest  to  which  our  neighbors 
are  a  party,  it  is  evident  that  Spain  as  a  power  is  scarcely 
felt  in  it.  These  new  states  had  completely  achieved  their 
independence  before  it  was  acknowledged  by  the  United 
States  and  they  have  since  maintained  it  with  little  foreign 
pressure.  The  disturbances  which  have  appeared  in 
certain  portions  of  that  vast  territory  have  proceeded  from 
internal  causes,  which  had  their  origin  in  their  former 
governments  and  have  not  yet  been  thoroughly  removed. 

It  is  manifest  that  these  causes  are  daily  losing  effect 
and  that  these  new  states  are  settling  down  under  govern- 
ments elective  and  representative  in  every  branch,  similar 
to  our  own.  In  this  course  we  ardently  wish  them  to 
persevere,  under  a  firm  conviction  that  it  will  promote 
their  happiness.  In  this  their  career,  however,  we  have 
not  interfered,  believing  that  every  people  have  a  right  to 
institute  for  themselves  the  government  which,  in  their 
judgment,  may  suit  them  best. 

Our  example  is  before  them,  of  the  good  effect  of 
which,  being  our  neighbors,  they  are  competent  judges, 
and  to  their  judgment  we  leave  it  in  the  expectation  that 
other  powers  will  pursue  the  same  policy.  The  deep 
interest  which  we  take  in  their  independence,  which  we 

46 


have  acknowledged,  and  in  their  enjoyment  of  all  the 
rights  incident  thereto,  especially  in  the  very  important 
one  of  instituting  their  own  governments,  has  been  de- 
clared and  is  known  to  the  world. 

Separated  as  we  are  from  Europe  by  the  great  Atlantic 
Ocean,  we  can  have  no  concern  in  the  wars  of  the  Euro- 
pean Governments  nor  in  the  causes  which  produce  them. 
The  balance  of  power  between  them,  into  whichever  scale 
it  may  turn  in  its  various  vibrations,  cannot  affect  us. 

It  is  the  interest  of  the  United  States  to  preserve  the 
most  friendly  relations  with  every  power  and  on  conditions 
fair,  equal  and  applicable  to  all.  But  in  regard  to  our 
neighbors  our  situation  is  different.  It  is  impossible  for  the 
European  Governments  to  interfere  in  their  concerns, 
especially  in  those  alluded  to,  which  are  vital,  without 
affecting  us;  indeed  the  motive  which  might  induce  such 
interference  in  the  present  state  of  the  war  between  the 
parties,  if  a  war  it  may  be  called,  would  appear  to  be 
equally  applicable  to  us.  It  is  gratifying  to  know  that 
some  of  the  powers  with  whom  we  enjoy  a  very  friendly 
intercourse,  and  to  whom  these  views  have  been  commu- 
nicated, have  appeared  to  acquiesce  in  them.'* 

After  Monroe's  retirement  from  the  Presidency  he 
accepted  the  office  of  Justice  of  the  Peace  at  his  old  home 
Oak  Hill,  Loudon  County,  Va. ;  while  there  he  took  great 
interest  in  the  University  of  Virginia,  visiting  it  con- 
stantly. 

At  his  death,  4  July  1831,  in  New  York,  he  left  two 
daughters  Mrs.  Hay  and  Mrs.  Samuel  S.  Gouverneur  who 
resided  in  that  city  and  with  the  latter  of  whom  he  lived. 
To  these  daughters  he  left  a  considerable  fortune  derived 
from  an  uncle  and  from  grants  of  Congress.  In  1858  his 
remains  were  removed  from  New  York  to  Richmond,  Va. 

While  Monroe  was  no  orator,  he  was  a  man  of  exalted 
character,  sound  judgment,  great  firmness  and  energy 
together  with  gentle  manners  and  steadfast  purpose.    His 

47 


excessive  generosity  kept  him  constantly  in  debt,  being 
known  as  a  poor  manager  of  his  own  private  affairs.  His 
name  will  always  be  enshrined  in  history  as  one  of  our 
greatest  Presidents  and  a  true  exponent  of  popular  rights. 


OF   THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


48 


GEO.  H.  MORRILL  Ei  CO. 

17  TO  3  1  VANDEVATER  STREET, 

NEW    YORK.  — 


MANUFACTURERS  OF  €€€«■ 


FRmiiflG  MB  Lithographic 

INKS 


BOSTON.  CHICAQO.  SAN   FRANCISCO. 


Q  outbwortb    |  (^ 


ompan^, 


^^,»OFACTO«e^^ 


■OF- 


Bonbs,  Xinens,  XebGcrs  anb 
...Mritlng  papers.,. 


MITTINEAGUE,        XXX        MASS. 


49 


IttlS  f^-: 


■PAPER-- 


MA  N  UFA  CTURERS, 


HOLYOKE,  X      X      X      X,  MASS. 


o^  PRINTERS!  -'. 


HAVE  YOU 
USED 


BLUE  RIDGE  RECORD 

IN  FLATS  AND        f% 
RULED  HEADINGS    f 

LTeS  A^°"/""i    X  GOOD  THING, 

DON'T  DELAY.  BUT  WRITE  AT  ONCE  FOR  SAMPLES  AND  PRICES. 

Antietam  Paper  Co., 

HAGERSTOWN,  MARYLAND. 
The  UP-TO-DATE  Paper  House 


50 


"THE  Fi:KTEr' 

ME/«Ilb®y/SITEtS  F@l 

M@TE  ME/il^S, 
L  Ir1IE/^ID)S, 

ST/^TEflElMTS, 
FES, 
)5,  Ti^^JT,  ET^o 

* 

IILL  m 

\      LETTEI^ 
i 

ElMWEL© 

^ 

51. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

ITiis  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recalL 


l3Way'65JO 


^'^ 


Wj^. 


L^ 


'65^ 


m 


lAY  1 0 1990 


mm  APft  2  ^  n 


RECEIVED 


MAY  '  6  1996 


CiRCULATIQN  DEPT. 


LD  21A-60m-3,'65 
(F2336slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  Caliiomia 

Berkeley 


